G.R. Simon and Others v. Union of India
(AIR 1997 Del 301)
[M. Jagannath Rao CJ., Anil Dev Singh and Man Homah Sarin JJ.,]
Wild life Protection Act, 1921
Constitution of India – Arts. 19(1)(g), 300, 300-A
The petitioners are the manufacturers wholesalers and dealers engaged in retail trade of tanned, cured and finished skin of animals and are also engaged in retail trade of articles made of skin (animal articles).
The petitioners challenged the chapter V A of Wild life Protection of Amendment Act, 1986 and notifications issued thereunder as violative of Articles 19(1) (g) read with Art.300 and art.200 A of the Constitution.
The petitioners argued that there is no nexus between the object of preservation of animal life and banning and destroying trade/business in the animal skins and articles made from them. They denied the offer of Bharat Leather Corporation buying the articles as the price was very low.
The amendment to the Act by which the holding of stocks on the expiry of the stipulated period except reclaimed for personal use become unlawful was assailed as confiscatory and as confiscatory and as deprivation of property.
They contended that the amendment Act rendered the petitioners as jobless without any compensation. The petitioners who had lawfully acquired skin and skin articles of animals already killed and had invested huge amounts of money and were deprived of sources of livelihood and violative Art. 19(1)(g). The protection of large numbers of wild animals could not be said to be in public interest.
However the Court rejected the petitioners contentions and stressed the importance of passing the Wild life Protection Act and said that the wildlife form part of cultural heritage in the same manner archeological monuments painting, literature etc., Each and every animal plays a role in maintaining the ecological balance. The petitioners had all the opportunity of selling and disposing of their stocks to authorized persons from the date of amendments till the date of case and wasted that time.
The court also held that neither the State nor the Bharat Leather Corporation and State Trading Corporation are under any legal obligation to purchase the stocks of the petitioners. The petitioners are also not entitled to any further time for disposal of stocks. The stocks of the petitioenrs would therefore be liable to dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The amendment to the Act are valid and intra vires.